Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Armenia B‑class Nagorno-Karabakh is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Azerbaijan B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Caucasia Unassessed (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The Swedish article is about the republic, not the region, and could thus be removed from this article. --78.82.250.63 (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) (user:flinga on svwp)[reply]

A 28k shift from one version to the other is way too much to be reverting back and forth over over. Discuss each piece individually, please, and do try to work together? And if anyone is violating the provisions of the arbitration on this topic, please remind them that they are beholden to it and further edit warring will result in blocking. Thank you. --Golbez (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you'll throw 1/4 of the article back and forth like it's nothing, but not one of you is ready to defend the edits? Hm. --Golbez (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I did not notice this message. User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work. I do not hesitate for a second to support his research. The text is big and it would be hard to discuss every entry by Oliveriki in details but his additions feature objective sources from first class Western academics. Azerbaijani editors always discard anything that runs against the spirit and letter of official state propaganda of their bizarre oil dictatorship headed by the uncrowned KGB monarch Aliyev. Azerbaijani futile fight against Western academia is like the objections of of the state-brainwashed Chinese or Soviets against Western accusations of human rights abuse. The favorite method of Azerbaijani objections to truth is finding Armenian grandmothers in the bloodline of Western academics (!!!!!). User:Tuscumbia was banned for six months for entertaining such ideas. Golbez I think u should restore the text and if some people disagree they should state why they do point by point. Zimmarod (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the onus for keeping an edit is on the person making it, not the person reverting it. I don't really know or care which side is right, just figure it out before this gets unprotected. If Tuscumbia was banned for six months, that just makes them one of a long line of editors on both sides who have been banned over this petty fight so that's not going to sway me one way or another. All I care about is stopping the edit war without having to actually read the material, because I burned out on picking through the contributions to these articles years ago. It's just that this behavior annoys me enough that, instead of un-watchlisting the article, I make the children sit down and tell them to play nice. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear: I don't know if one side is right or not. I don't care. I just don't like edit wars, and I don't like having to enforce them by blocking people when there's been zero discussion on the topic. So, the article gets locked until there's discussion. Maybe in a week I'll switch it to the version with your edit, and then swap it back and forth forever until discussion takes place. --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, please see the futility of building a consensus with User:Tuscumbia here on talk pages in Murovdag [1]. I think five editors spend a month in empty talk with a stubborn POV-pusher. Zimmarod (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, do you find any similarities in the following statements: by Zimmarod and by Gorzaim? Same person. No doubt. Here is more of the same rhetoric: [2] and [3] (along with the current [4]) Ironically, Winterbliss, Zimmarod and many others appeared at nearly the same time (meaning their active period coincides) and they speak the "same language". Look at their joint activity. After monthly intervals, Oliveriki is called to make that special sockpuppet edit such as this one, which was undone by one of editors for being the product of major sockpuppet master Hetoum I's socks Bars77, Gorzaim and Vandorenfm, which in turn, was reverted by another new suspicious account Szeget, who was, needless to say, found to be a sock of Hetoum I/Xebulon, as well. Tuscumbia (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmarod; it seems it wasn't Oliveriki who wrote this all up. She just restored older entries. This section is supposed to be about building consensus on subject matter issues. Instead Tuscumbia prefers cheap manipulations in hope to persuade administrators that everyone is a sock of each other. Tuscumbia and his friends have nothing to say, they are just gaming the system. And it appears that those who should be checked for the DUCK TEST are User:Mursel and User:Tuscumbia: compare Mursel here [5] and Tuscumbia here [6] and here [7]. Both make identically worded threats "["One more blind revert" - "You do that one more time" - "If you keep doing it"] and you will be reported." Now see who is the real sockmaster. Same language same threats. He does not say "I will report you if you do this/that" but "If - blah, blah - you will be reported." Identical structure of the phrase. Do not forget that both Tuscumbia and Mursel help one another on AA2 pages like they just did on Nagorno-Karabakh page here [8] and here [9].

Now see what uninvolved third party editors say about Tuscumbia:

• Lothar von Richthofen commented on Tuscumbia's misuse of SPIs:

"Checkuser is not for fishing. If you can present actual evidence other then "they make edits that I don't like and it makes me mad so I want to harass them with SPIs on the offhand chance that they will turn up to be the same people, then maybe a new Checkuser might be in order. Otherwise, your invocation of phantom sockpuppeteers is borderline disruptive.→ [10]

• Administrator User:Wgfinley getting tired of Tuscumbia unwillingness to cooperate with several editors:

Tuscumbia - you are on the cusp of some action on my part. I don't see anything from you that legitimately refutes either Walker or Hewsen as reliable sources for this article. You want to accuse the sources of bias but have no evidence that proves them as such and seem instead to make up bias for them (such as Hewsen somehow making his own electronic maps). There have been established texts supplied that support that use of that name, why can't it be added as an alternate name? [11]

Winterbliss (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see two posts trying to get me to care about who is or is not a sock of someone else, or who can or can not be reasoned with. I don't care. I'm here to protect the article, not spend hours diving into the minutiae. If you can't come to a consensus then you move on up the dispute resolution ladder. If you think someone is a sock then you go to the suspected sockpuppets page. What you do not do is continue to revert back and forth. Period. --Golbez (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez - "Actually, the onus for keeping an edit is on the person making it, not the person reverting it." I dont understand what that means. There were several authors who wrote the 1/4 of the text that was deleted, and several other editors who endorse these new edits. If someone does not like the new edits, she might have explained her position right after her revert. None of the editors who were reverting the new edits explained what they disagreed with. The were just posting "this is a POV" when reverting, meaning that they were not interesting in improving the article in principle. Let's restore the text and if the reverting/deleting Azerbaijani editors finally bother to explain why they revert, we may consider their arguments and accordingly modify the text. The onus is in this particular case on those who did not bother to explain their reverts on talk pages and engaged instead in edit war. Zimmarod (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmarod, there is a problem here. You are defending edits from someone else that strongly appear to not have been made in good faith. It is very unusual that an editor with 13 edits somehow picks an edit from 4 months ago and implements it. How many new editors do that? And then disappears? And gave a crappy edit summary? I agree with Tuscumbia, there's serious quacking here. Zimmarod, if you want to justify the edit, then go for it - you are allowed to take ownership of it, if you can ably defend it. You should understand what you're dealing with: You said, "User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work." No, he didn't. If you compare the version that Szeget put up in September with the one Oliveriki put up a few days ago, they are functionally identical. (link: [12]) The only way Oliveriki wrote this is if he WAS Szeget, and if he was, that means he should be blocked. So please understand that there's no valid way around this. Either Oliveriki didn't write this, he just happened upon a revert from 4 months ago and thought he'd integrate it into the article; or he did write it, and thus is a sockpuppet and should be blocked. I find it very interesting that Oliveriki made his edit then completely disappeared; surely a new editor who had just done an "tremendous job" of "first-class research" would want to stick around and see how his labor was received? --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone should "own" the article or the edits, and I am against Zimmarodd's owning of this article or the edits that he supported. I also support edits of other users. I have supported MarshalBagramian, George Spurlin, and others but why anyone should "own" edits??? The edits in question were made by four or five accounts in mid-2011, not by User:Oliveriki or User:Zimmarod. So what? Edits are edits. If they make subject-matter sense and are referenced and are ok as per other WP rules of editing they are fine. What is not ok, and here I tend to agree with Zimmarrod, is erasing them without explanation, as User:Mursel, User:Tuscumbia and User:Ehud Lazar did now and before in mid-2011. That is the problem, and that is where you, Golbez, should have intervened but instead you perhaps without partiality intention endorsed the vandalized version of the article. Winterbliss (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, when someone is banned, their edits can be reverted on sight. Whether they are good or bad. If they are valid edits, then someone who wasn't banned has to make them and claim them as their own, rather than simply saying "I think your reversion was incorrect." It is now them who is making the edit and must defend it, rather than leave it on the original, banned, editor to defend it. That's what I mean by take ownership. If they are to be preserved, someone must take responsibility for them. I would love to assume good faith but with these articles, that will never exist, so I gave up on it long ago. Every time I've tried I've been bitten, and it's extremely difficult for me to look at Oliveriki's edit in good faith. (Zimmarod's defense of it, however, does appear genuine and in good faith) And, again: It is an edit that requires justification, not the reversion thereof, as per Bold, Revert, Discuss. Finally: To call the reverted version the "vandalized" version is really displaying a bias, whether you intended it or not. I would say someone editwarring over a long period of time and with multiple socks to insert his preferred version is vandalizing. At least Tuscumbia generally follows the rules. --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that these mass edits are done not by established users, but by sock accounts that had appeared and messed everything up before they were disclosed and blocked indefinitely. To retain the same text, a new wave of accounts appeared virtually at the same time. At the very same time, activity of established users decreased. Whether these new accounts operate from the same geograhical area or not, is now irrelevant; what's relevant is that one puppeteer is operating them. Hence,the similarities between statements "Bars77 should be commended for restoring parts of the article as asked here on talk pages. I wish there were more editors like Bars77 who would try to accommodate the opposite side's point of view irrespective of the latter's emotional outbursts and threats" and "User:Oliveriki has done a tremendus job of putting together a splendid compliation of first-class research on the history and demography of the region. He must be praised for this work. I do not hesitate for a second to support his research" from two seemingly different people, who speak the same language, of praising suspicious accounts (first two were blocked for socking). Tuscumbia (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscumbia is being consistently disruptive in his futile effort to expose his opponents as socks even post-SPIs, which points in the same direction - Tuscumbia et al aren't here to improve this article but to sabotage its content by making bizarre claims against other editors. Golbez's support of Tuscumbia where he says "At least Tuscumbia generally follows the rules" I find suspicious and disquieting. Winterbliss (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked twice. We're talking about edits from someone banned for sockpuppetry. So, comparatively, yes, Tuscumbia follows the rules. If you think he's being "consistently disruptive" then move up the dispute resolution ladder, but otherwise that has no bearing here. As for it being "suspicious and disquieting," again, formally accuse me of whatever bias you think you're seeing (and, by the way, all of the long-time civil editors of these articles, on both sides, will laugh at you - I don't think you realize just how well I know these people) or stop bringing it up here. There's no use to repeated, passive-aggressive complaining about someone's conduct on an article's talk page; if you think they're acting in bad faith, there are more appropriate venues. This is about this article, and this edit, of which I think Tuscumbia is generally right on, in terms of where it came from, though not on its factual merits, which I have deliberately avoided examining. And which, I note, not one person has discussed. So much for trying to foster discussion. Do any of you actually care WHAT is in the article, or just who puts it there? --Golbez (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My discussion below is about my revert to an earlier version of the text [13] that was developed by several users in 2011 and destroyed early last fall due to an edit war outbreak and POV-pushing spree by User:Tuscumbia who was banned yesterday [14], by the way. • Formula in the Introduction about that “The region's future international status remains so far unsettled” fits better than the present language because the Minsk Group does not place bias in favor of any future outcome for status of NK. Population by ethnic Armenians is a fact and a major factor in the talks and should be in the Introduction. • Opening sentence in the Etymology on Artsakh makes sense and is based on 5 references, including the Caucasian Knot, a book written by French authors whose historical part was endorsed by Tom de Waal in his new book “The Caucasus: an Introduction” (page 102). Tom de Waal is recognized as an authority on the region by Wikipedia and included in official sources on NK. The other author widely cited in the added new text is George Bournoutian, an American historian and a global authority on the history of the region. His two volume study called “Armenians and Russia, A Documentary Record” includes correspondence of Armenian princes of Karabakh in the late Middle Ages and is a key source of academic insight for this article. Robert Hewsen is a historian from the US who was endorsed by Tom de Waal and is one of the most prominent authorities on medieval Karabakh. His “Armenia: a Historical Atlas” was highly acclaimed as a source of excellent graphically enhanced information on Armenia through history. All references were checked by me page by page. Christopher Walker is yet another third party source, an English author who comes with his article “The Armenian presence in Mountainous Karabakh” in the volume by John F. R. Wright called “Transcaucasian Boundaries.” Walker explains the use of the term Khachen. The Etymology section also points to a number of other terms applied to Nagorno Karabakh in the Middle Ages, such as Lesser Armenia, Lesser Syunik, and Armenia Interior. Medieval Armenian authors Movses Khorenatsi, Matheos Urhaetsi, the Greek author Plutarch are mentioned as sources of these names. I checked Movses Khorenatsi and Matheos Urhaetsi’s writings (he calls Artsakh Խորին Հայք, which can be translated as Armeia Interior or Deep Armenia) and they do truly provide valid basis for such claims. Plutarch and Khorenatsi are supported by Robert Hewsen’s Atlas and ‘The Caucasian Knot.” The photo image of the city of Tigranakert is ok in my opinion since it is supported by Robert Hewsen as an early mention of the term Artsakh. • The Early History section in the reformatted text is good but incomplete. A key point is the reference to the medieval Armenian geographer Anania of Shirak who is discussed by Robert Hewsen. Anania of Shirak makes an important point about Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh being a land that was taken from Armenia in 428 AD and yet which was understood, perceived and codified by medieval Armenians as part of their homeland despite the detachment. The French-American volume “The Caucasian Knot” point to that notion as well, making a key secondary reference. Another key reference is Hewsen’s article called “The Kingdom of Artsakh” which explored high medieval Nagorno Karabakh during the reign of Hasan Jalal, Prince of Khachen. Ethno-demographic claims in the text are supported by the ancient Greek author Strabo and indirectly by Svante Cornell, a Swedish US-based author. I checked all these references are they are ok. Primary sources of Movses Khorenatsi and Movses Kaghankatvatsi which are fortified by the secondary source discussions by Robert Hewsen and the American authors Agop Jack Hacikyan, Gabriel Basmajian, and Edward S. Franchuk in the “The Heritage of Armenian Literature” are there to show how “Armenian culture and civilization flourished in the early medieval Nagorno-Karabakh.” • The High Middle Ages section starts with the discussion of the House of Khachen and relies on the medical author Kirakos Gandzaketsi, as primary source, and Robert Hewsen supporting him as a secondary source. An important primary source on the House of Arranshahik, predecessors of the House of Khachen, is Tovma Artsruni with his “History of the House of Artruni.” Tovma describes Nagorno Karabakh during the times of anti-Caliphate resistance and eviction of Arabs from the region. Sirarpie Der Nersessian, a well-known American historian, provides information about connections of medieval Nagorno Karabakh and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. Discussions on architectural monuments and other cultural aspects relies on “The Caucasian Knot.” • Discussions on Late Middle Ages are based on archival materials and on commentary in the two volume series “Armenians and Russia, A Documentary Record,” as well as on the travelogue “Life and Adventures of Emin Joseph Emin 1726-1809,” and on Persian-writing authors A.G.Bakikhanov, Adigezal Bek Qarabaghi and Mirza Jamal Qarabaghi. In my opinion it insufficiently discusses Armenian national independence and self-defense movements in Nagorno Karabakh and Synik in 1720s-1730s while mentioning Bagramian and Karabakh prince Israel Ori (whose rendering is also added). • The section on Language is good as it relies both on primary and secondary sources and on philological studies, e.g. Bert Vaux’s “The Phonology of Armenian.” • The Demographics and ethnic composition section is decent. The advantage of the new text is that it includes the ancient times subsection, including the exotic but informative sources such as the medieval military register of Armenia. “The Bondage And Travels Of Johann Schiltberger, A Native Of Bavaria, In Europe, Asia And Africa” was also used appropriately as a primary source. The “Armenians and Russia, A Documentary Record” volumes provide key data on demographic balance in the region in 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. Another important document is the survey prepared by the Russian imperial authorities in 1823. In the Soviet era section there is an interesting reference to Heydar Aliyev’s direct speech on the policy of demographic makeup in NKAO.

other please chip in. Zimmarod (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with changes to the early history section. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nocturnal781. Zimmarod (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way the early history is written completely disregards a neutral point of view. It gives the reader a wrong view. I believe replacing the quote with this one is more neutral. Robert Hewsen wrote both sides are guilty of oversimplifying the ethnic history of the region, "the population of southeast Caucasus whether under Armenian or Albanian rule, was highly mixed, and to label it as being essentially one or the other or even to divide it simply into two groups is well in advance of the evidence. " Original reference: Robert H. Hewsen, "Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence Upon the Caucasian Albanians" Nocturnal781 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is very bad written. There are quotations out of context and/or superseded. Hewsen himself corrected some of his theories that he put forward in Ethno-History. --vacio 15:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with vacio. Hewsen changed his point of view. Consult his Atlas for reference and his appearance in Tom de Waal's Black Garden. By the way, I a week ago supported a restoration of a much better-written history section that was put together earlier in 2011 but was erased by User:Tuscumbia who was banned yesterday for a year. Since he is banned, his edits should be reverted. Zimmarod (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with changes to the early history section. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Hewsen clearly sticks to his original position in his interview to de Waal, refers to the same work of 1980s and accuses both sides of manipulating the historical facts. Also, primary sources should not be interpreted by wiki editors. We can only refer to interpretations by reliable secondary sources. Mainstream history does not support the idea that Armenians were aboriginal inhabitants of NK and South Caucasus. Since the ancestors of Armenians came into region at some point in history, clearly the region was inhabited by other people before that happened. Also, the sources used must be all neutral and third party, while Caucasian Knot by Chorbaijan and other similar sources are clearly partisan. Also, there are too many suspicions accounts here, restoring edits by other banned SPAs and agreeing with each other. For instance, Nocturnal781 looks pretty much like an SPA. Created on January 9, 2012, the very first edit is to deredlink his user age to look like an established user, and for the most part is engaged in edit warring on AA articles. Zimmarod is the same, created in November 2011, instantly deredlinked his user page and jumped into AA edit wars. I propose to ban all new accounts from editing articles like this, unless they prove themselves good faith editors by editing articles outside of AA conflict for at least 1 year. Grandmaster

That would be grand. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support such a proposal? Grandmaster 11:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hewsen didn't completely change his position on the ethno-history of the region, but there are some differences and adjustments that I think we have to pay attention to. I have once pointed out some of these differences (please read from the line Coming to the main point). I agree with Grandmaster to use Hewsen and other third party sources, but in this article Hewsen is quoted out of context and incompletely, furthermore the contradiction made between his later statements is in large part artificial and the consequence of not good examining sources. To be more specific, in both his Ethno-History and Atlas of Armenia Hewsen demonstrates that the entire historical Armenia was inhabited by non-Indo-European tribes, who were not Armenians as we understand today, but pre-Armenians. Which means they were people who later intermarried with incoming proto-Armenians to form modern Armenian ethnicity. Grandmasters contention that Armenians were not aboriginal inhabitants of NK is not exactly what Hewsen says. According to Hewsen the ancestors of the people of NK were both the mostly aboriginal pre-Armenians and the supposedly immigrant proto-Armenians. The only difference between his earlier and later works is, that in Ethno-History he assumed that some of these pre-Armenians were certain Iranian people, while in Atlas he writes that this is uncertain. --vacio 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support Zimmarod's initiative to restore the deleted material, and endorse his discussion from the subject-matter perspective. I see imperfections in the restored paragraphs but that can be fixed later. What I also see yet another interesting fact, the re-appearance of Wikipedia's notorious account User:Grandmaster. I remember this account from my time in Russian wiki when Grandmaster was accused by Divot of managing a large sockfarm and off-Wiki coordination via distribution lists. See www.wikireality.ru/wiki/%D0%98%D0%A1%D0%9A589. It is notable that Grandmaster, who was editing very infrequently last and this year, suddenly re-appeared on this very page (and not editing some article, but on talk pages) only a day after the sanctioning of his Ruswiki's comrade-in-arms User:Tuscumbia to a one-year ban from AA. It was proven in Russian wiki that Tuscumbia and Grandmaster coordinated their edits. And here is Grandmaster, making claims that are absolutely identical to Tuscumbia's. Tuscumbia was banned two times already for claiming that academics of suspected Armenian origin shall be excluded as reliable sources. Grandmaster claims that too right here, trying to exclude Chorbadjian. That will not work. The Caucasian Knot's history section was indeed praised by Thomas de Waal in his most recent monograph, but even if it was not, excluding academics solely because of their purported ethnicity is racist and will be reported and punished continuously. My proposal is simple: to ban User:Grandmaster because of his known off-wiki manipulations, and ban all those accounts from this article which were ever sanctioned under AA1 or AA2. I browsed Grandmaster editing history and it turns out that a precedent for such an action does exist - Grandmaster is banned from editing the Caucasian Albania article.

On the subject of who is and who is not indigenous in Armenia and Karabakh. Hewsen places Artsakh within Orontid's Armenia. Secondly, Mesrob Mashtots founded the first Armenian school to teach his Armenian Alphabet in Nagorno-Karabakh's Amaras Monastery and not in Yerevan or Constantinople. Got it? I recommend Grandmaster more carefully examine recent discussion on talk pages in Murovdag, when stubborn Tuscumbia tried to sabotage edits by making ridiculous insinuations. His fate may await anyone who borrows his methodology. Please note that filibustering, tendentious editing and repeating the same points over and over again - WP:Ad nauseam - will be subject to sanction as per [15] in the recent case with Murovdag. Winterbliss (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also information on meta-wiki confirming that Grandmaster was head of 26 Baku Commissars. But I ask Winterbliss and Grandmaster to discuss their proposals to ban certain users in a different section or on the AA2 page. Please let's keep the conversation here on the subject and on a friendly tone. And Winterbliss, let's refrain from ORs based on certain historical facts, there is enough OR in this article already. Thank you. --vacio 10:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I was not banned from editing any article here, Caucasian Albania included. The ban applies to everyone who was under any sanctions at any time, which pretty much leaves that article to various socks by excluding established users, most of whom were sanctioned. And I don't see how events in other language wikis have anything to do with what's going on here. Now coming to Hewsen, I see no mention of pre-Armenians, if you mean by that people who were later assimilated by Armenians. By the same token, we can mention pre-Azerbaijanis, i.e. Caucasian Albanians who were later assimilated by Turkic people. The fact is that the original population of the Caucasus was neither Armenian nor Turkic, it consisted of various people mostly of Caucasian origin, such as udis. These people were later assimilated by Armenians and Azerbaijanis, but as Hewsen mentioned, the original population represented "heterogenous mass" which "were originally much too diversified". As for reliability of sources, I must remind everyone that we should use third party sources, per WP:VERIFY: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's what the rules require. Also, the sources must be specialist. I remember that when the Muslim mosque in Yerevan was discussed, some Armenian users were rejecting de Waal because he was a journalist and not historian. Why should we refer to journalists in the matters of history in this article then? Chorbadjian is not third party, and he is not a historian either. Grandmaster 11:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Winterbliss is another curious account. It appeared in November 2011, and also deredlinked his user and talk page by first edits to look like an established user. So there are 3 of such accounts here now, all agreeing with each other. Let's see if there are more to join. Grandmaster 11:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hewsen uses "pre-Armenian" in both Ethno-History and Historial Atlas many times. And he writes that the whole Armenian plateau was inhabited by various ethnic entities before they would intermarry the proto-Armenians (There, they intermarried with the non-Indo-European-speaking natives, already a highly mixed people to form the Armenian people that we know today, Atlas, p. 10). Also, according to Hewsen Udis did not live in Artsakh neither does he mention Cacuasian Albanians or pre-Azerbaijanis living in Artsakh. --vacio 16:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster is repeating the same points over and over again (Chorbadjian, discussing Armenian identity of peoples living at the time when wooly mammoths roamed the earth :)))), etc.), a method of filibustering a consensus used most recently by User:Tuscumbia in the talks on Murovdag. Like Tuscumbia, Grandmaster is referring to other articles, like mosque in Yerevan above, and other topics, citing imperfections in them as a ground to hold changes in article under discussion. He pretends not to hear that de Waal is an official wiki source on Karabakh, etc. That is why Grandmaster's edit history in Russian wiki is a relevant subject regardless of the fact that Ruswiki and English wiki are different projects - there is lots and lots of evidence that in English wiki Grandmaster uses the same tricks as in Ruswiki, and the recently banned Tuscumbia, as well Mursel are either one editor or a team coordinating their actions off wiki. I never denied that I am a well-established user coming from Ruswiki. I deredlinked my account because I have a long editing history in Ruswiki, and there were many discussions and SPIs about that. Grandmaster is Tuscumbia's quacking meatpuppet who came to the rescue of his recently-banned comrade. He quacks so loudly it is almost deafening. Winterbliss (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Sunny is very badly misquoted in this section. The text added by User:Mursel:

Another Armenian historian, Ronald Grigor Suny, argues that Azerbaijanis are the direct descendants of the native Caucasian Albanians and that the territory of Artsakh historically belongs to them.

Sunys text:

Karabagh had been in acient and medieval times part of the kingdom of the Caucasian Albanians. This etho-religious group, now long extinct, had converted to Christianity in the fourth century and drew close to the Armenian church. Over time its upper classes were effectively Armenized. When the Seljuks invaded Transcaucasia in the 11th century, a process of Islamization began that resulted in the conversion of the peoples of the plain to the east of Karabagh to Islam. These people were the direct ancestors of present-day Azerbaijanis, spoke a Turkic language and adopted the Shi'i brand of Islam dominant in neighboring Iran. The mountains remained largely Christian, and in time the Karabagh Albanians merged with the Armenians

As one can see, Suny doesn't claim anywhere that Artsakh "historically" would belong to Azerbajanis. In fact his mention of Azerbaijanis is not about Artsakh/Karabakh at all. All Suny contends in the passage above is:

• Transcuacasus was conquered by Seljuks in the 11th century.
• People living to the east of Karabakh were islamicized and they spoke a Turkic language
• Those people were ancestors of present-day Azerbaijanis. --vacio 16:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misquotation is a serious violation of WP rules. How can such an account be trusted and allowed to continue editing this article? Winterbliss (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it, I don't think leaving information that is referenced where the reference is misquoted should be allowed in a article for another second..Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Hewsen the people of Artsakh were not Caucasian Albanians. Suny bases his text on a superseded theory, according to which Arsakh had been part of Caucasian Albania in 2th century BC. --vacio 10:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hewsen said that people of Artsakh and Utik were of mixed origin, and non-Indo-European, except for people of Iranian origin. And despite some Armenicization, they still were distinct ethnicities when those lands passed to Albania. He clearly says that aboriginl population of Artakh was not Armenian. He cites the names of the tribes inhabiting the region and says that "these names are sufficient to tell us that, whatever their origin, they were certainly not Armenian. Moreover, although certain Iranian peoples must have settled here during the long period of Persian and Median rule, most of the natives were not even Indo-Europeans". And also:

These peoples, all conquered by the Armenians in the second century B. C., must have been subjected to a great deal of Armenicization over the next few centuries, but most of them were still being cited as distinct ethnic entities when these regions passed to Albania in 387, some 500 years later.

So aboriginal population, later assimilated by Armenians and Turkic people, was mostly of Caucasian origin. The region was later conquered by Armenians, then passed to C.Albania, but the population remained mixed and tribal. That's what the mainstream history says. And Hewsen is not the only source. Grandmaster 13:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmaster, what exactly do you try to assert? Yes, Hewsen wrote that Artsakh was originally inhabited by various non-Armenian or pre-Armenian tribes. I don't see anyone contesting against this theory here on this TP. My point is that when this theory is mentioned then it should be in its context, complete, furthermore one should also take into account the adjustments that the author made in his recent works. The article, as it now is, needs serious corrections. I am going to rewrite the section and I think it's necessary that the following information is correctly represented in the article:

• In ancient times the Armenian plateau, including Artsakh and Utik, was inhabited by various mostly non-Indo-European tribes. (Atlas, p. 10; Ethno-History, p. 31, 33)
• These people entered the Armenian plateau from various directions (Atlas, p. 10)
• It is uncertain whether Artsakh itself was inhabited by various tribes or just one tribe. (Atlas, p. 58)
• After the fall of Urartu, these people started to intermarry with the incoming proto-Armenians. The Armenians thus represent a fusion of the non Indo-European aborigines and the Indo-European proto-Armenians. (Ethno-History, p. 31) Which means that the claim that the Armenians were not natives is a misrepresentation of the sources.
• The fusion took earlier place in the central part of the Armenian plateau, than in eastern regions like Syunik, Artsakh and Utik. (Atlas, p. 10)
• At the time when Artsakh and Utik passed to Caucasian Albanian, their population consisted of "Armenized" tribes and Armenians "per se". (Ethno-History, pp. 33-34)
• In medieval times the population of Artsakh had a strong Armenian identity. (Atlas, p. 58)

I will be glad to see any further suggestions to improve the article is. Also, I agree that Hewsen is not the only author. Any other reputable sources are welcome to be discussed. --vacio 16:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, if Armenians "represent a fusion of the non Indo-European aborigines and the Indo-European proto-Armenians", it does not make them natives to region. By the same token, Azerbaijanis are as much natives as Armenians are, because Azerbaijanis are the fusion of Turkic tribes with aboriginal diverse population of Albania. This logic is flawed, because it cannot apply to Armenians only. As for population of Artsah and Utik, they were Armenized to a certain degree, but not fully, because "most of them were still being cited as distinct ethnic entities when these regions passed to Albania in 387", according to Hewsen. Grandmaster 11:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is your own interpretation of history. Hewsen does not say anywhere in his studies that since the proto-Armenians (according one theory!) were migrants, hence the Armenian people are not natives. Such a claim is essentially ahistorical, since it is based on the lack of making difference between pre Armenian and proto Armenian elements.

As for your comparison with Azeris — whether they are natives or not— I am not sure if that's relevant to this topic. If I am not wrong, the ancestors of Azerbaijanis came to the Caucasus as Turkic people already, with Turkic identity. Anyhow, I don't remember any scholar calling them proto Azerbaijanis. Also, these ancestors did not absorb Albanians, but people who were Islamized during Arab rule (see p. 35 Ethno-History). Caucasian Albanians were Christians, don't forget.

Yes, in 387 they were mostly Armenized, not completely. Thank you for correcting me. --vacio 12:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he says anywhere anything about either Azerbaijanis or Armenians being natives. That is your own interpretation. As for Azerbaijanis, they indeed absorbed mostly Islamized population, but part of this population was previously Christian. And Albanians is a name for a tribal federation, which consisted of 26 tribes. Of course, Azerbaijanis absorbed Albanians, but not just them. People of Dagestani and Iranian stock also played a significant role in ethnogenesis of Azerbaijani people. But I think the talk about anyone being native or not is not relevant to this article. It is better stick to the fact, and not interpretations. Grandmaster 10:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is your own interpretation - Where did I make any interpretation or claim above? I only argued against your claim that the Armenians are not natives in the region. Yes, the best thing is to stick to the facts and don't make any interpretation. Also we should refrain from incomplete representation of facts or citations out of context. That's why I quoted Hewsen point by point above. Any other comments or suggestions? --vacio 13:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving theoretical disputes aside, what exactly is proposed to be included in the section about ancient history? That section could be improved, but overall it looks more or less balanced, while the mention of Khorenatsi could be removed. And when the article says "other Western authors argued", who are those other authors? Grandmaster 09:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, and I want to try to improve it. About Movses Khorenatsi I already commented below.--vacio 18:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I read in the section Early history:

However, relying on information provided by the 5th century Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi, other Western authors argued—and Hewsen himself indicated later—that these peoples could have been conquered by the Kingdom of Armenia much earlier, in the 4th century BC.[14] However it is noteworthy that the credibility of Movses Khorenatsi is disputed.

The only reference in the first sentence is p. 32-33 of Armenia: a Historical Atlas. However I carefully read everything Hewsen wrote about the early history of Artsakh and the Orontids, and he does not say anywhere that he based his research on the issue when Armenia did acquire Artsakh, on the History of Movses Khorenatsi. In fact, the map on the pages pp 32-33 is based on the research of the Armenian scholar Eremyan (see the legend). Furthermore, even if Hewsen and other Western scholars would rely on Movses Khorenatsi, the following two sentences about his credibility – again added by user Mursel – is a WP:SYNTHESIS of sources and should be removed. --vacio 10:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After I explained above why that this passage Early History needs serious improvements, here is my proposed edited version (text that I didn't changes is italic):

Nagorno-Karabakh falls within the lands occupied by peoples known to modern archaeologists as the Kura-Araxes culture, who lived between the two rivers Kura and Araxes.

Known then as Artsakh, Nagorno-Karabakh had probably a varied ethnic character in Antiquity [ref: Atlas, p. 58]. Its pre-Armenians or non-Armenians natives would intermarry with the so called proto-Armenians who came to the region after its inclusion to Armenia in the 2nd or possibly in 4th century BC. According to the prevailing theory among western historians, the Armenian people represent a fusion of these two ethnic elements which started in the western and central part of the Armenian Plateau after the fall of Urartu in 6th century BC and moved to the east [ref: Atlas, p 10][ref: Ethno-History, p 31].

Overall, from around 180 BC and up until the 4th century — before becoming part of the Armenian Kingdom again, in 855 — the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh remained part of the Armenian Kingdom as the province of Artsakh. After the partition of Armenia between Byzantium and Persia, in 387 AD, Artsakh and the neighboring province Utik became part of Caucasian Albania, which, in turn, came under strong Armenian religious and cultural influence. At this time, the population of these two provinces had a highly Armenian character although many of the aboriginal tribes were still cited as distinct ethnic entities. [...]

I would be glad to hear any remarks and additional suggestions (also from NPOV users like Golbez). --vacio 18:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I'm pretty annoyed with this article, and from the start of this latest episode have had no interest in actually reading the proposed edits. Just the manner in which they've been implemented. --Golbez (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about pre-Armenians or non-Armenians natives is unsourced and "according to the prevailing theory among western historians, the Armenian people represent a fusion" is more relevant to Demographics of Armenia or History of Armenia. As for the second paragraph, I don't think it's factually accurate as it stands. Brandmeister t 16:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, the origin of Armenian people is also relevant to this article and actually very important to be mentioned. According to Hewsen, the theory about how the Armenian people evolved is essential to describe the ethnic picture of Artsakh in Antiquity and (early) mediaeval times.

Let us take as a starting point the question of the ethnic composition of the population of Arc'ax and Utik', the regions between the Arax and the Kur which were Armenian territory until 387 and which lie in Azerbaidzhán today. To Mnac'akanyan, this territory was originally Armenian; to Bunjatov, it was Albanian. What do we actually know of its history? [...] The general consensus today is that the Armenians, as we know them, represent a fusion between these incoming tribes—conventionally called "Armens"—and the diverse natives of the plateau who had previously formed a part of the Urartian federation.32 For this fusion to have taken place, however, the so-called "Armens" would have had to have spread across the plateau from west to east [...] (Ethno-History, p. 31)

As for pre-Armenian it is the common term used by scholars to designate the tribes who lived in the Armenian plateau before the proto-Armenians came. Probably you did not read the discussion above, because I already provided sources for it. Finally, I didn't change much in the second paragraph, as one can see. If you explain which statements you think are inaccurate, we can check the sources and if necessary correct or change them. Anyhow, the mention that Artsakh became part of Armenia in 2nd century BC, that it passed to Caucasian Albania in 4th century AD and that Caucasian Albania itself was then highly influenced by Armenia (as one can read in Ethno-History of Hewsen), seem correct to me. --vacio 18:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vacio, thanx for your good archival and sourcing work. I find it to be quite helpful. I support the rewrite but donot understand "although many of the aboriginal tribes were still cited as distinct ethnic entities." See Anania Shirakatsi's remark about Artsakh and Utik which were considered to be part of Armenia in Armenia regardless of their weaker connection to Armenia due to attachment to Aghvank. I also would like to see distinction between "Cauasian Albania" of the older times and Kingdom of Aghvank - an Armenian state in all sense and purposes, where Armenians lived in the west and non-Armenians dominated the state's eastern part. We need to restore the entire earlier write-up back to Oct 2011. Zimmarod (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we are here to discuss the topics in friendly and relaxed atmosphere. However, new evidence of Grandmaster's canvassing and off-wiki coordination of edits in English wiki are coming to light. It is known that Gransmaster was coordinating editing of a large group of Azerbaijani user in Russian wiki from here information on meta-wiki and here [16] by being the head of 26 Baku Commissars. But take a look at this curious exchange - [17], [18], which are requests of off-wiki communication between Grandmaster and Mursel (who misquoted several references in this article). Mursel replying to Grandmaster, and Grandmaster confirming that he e-mailed Mursel back: "Salam kardas necesen? Senin e-mail ne dir kardas, bir suzum var sene?? Sağ ol. Bu səhifənin sağ tərəfində E-mail this user linkını basıb mənə yaza bilərsən. Grandmaster 14:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC). Bro your e-mail doest work, it says you havent confirmed it yet. If you cant get it fixed mail me at farhad87@hotmail.com. I'll mail you my question to you there. Leave a message here if you have sended the mail. Hi. I forgot to enable it, it is OK now. I've already e-mailed you. Grandmaster 17:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)." Now it becomes clear why User:Neftchi suddenly bothered to change his user name to User:Mursel: in such case signatures are removed in old correspondences, and it becomes unclear at first blush who communicated with whom. But every communication is stored in caches and can be invoked if necessary. That's so much for calling other accounts "suspicious." Winterbliss (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. Thanks for the good laugh. For your information, emailing each other is not against the rules, that is why the wiki accounts have email feature in the first place. And it was not against the rules 6 (!) years ago, when the communication you refer to happened. Also, if you scroll further down, you can see that Armenian editors also emailed me. Does it prove anything? At least I'm not rolling new accounts time after time once the old ones got blocked for sockery, like some do. You can trace the entire history of my contributions back to 2005. Grandmaster 12:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was obliged to remove User:Tuscumbia's edits since good or bad edits of BANNED users are to be canceled. Mursell's edits were removed earlier since they were not made in good faith. Please continue your discussion and do not engage in edit war. This is not the final version. Zimmarod (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ruin an established version of the article until consensus. The recent revert has numerous problematic issues, most notably, the removal of the NKR's unrecognized status and a POV statement of "original, historical and most enduring name for Nagorno-Karabakh". Other than that, there are WP:PRIMARY issue of The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxuranc'i, replacement of the neutral landscape with the Gandzasar Monastery picture and insertion of other POV pictures, etc. Brandmeister t 00:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous version had many more problematic issues and they were discussed above. Please do not restore the edits of banned users. Come to consensus and please do not engage in an edit war. Hablabar (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is that User:Brandmeister was banned from AA area for a year, and now when his ban is lifted he is piping hot with WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. I don't see why Hablabar is an SPA and why that matters. "Replacement of the neutral landscape with the Gandzasar Monastery picture" - I found nothing like that in the article. There's a pic of the village of Vank it seems and the Gandzasar mon's pic was there from the start. And what is "neutral landscape" to begin with? Winterbliss (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, kids, here's the deal.

I protected this page for a week to force discussion over a 24k change that was being batted back and forth. It was an edit literally from October 9, 2011; Oliveriki simply reverted all the way back to that, with the edit summary "rest references". That alone warrants reversion.

Pretty much no discussion took place.

So, the protection runs its course, and what happens? Two different editors immediately put back that exact same edit, saying "undoing banned user" (which is absolutely not true) or, even more outrageous, "see talk page". Really? Do you think I'm an idiot? WHAT DISCUSSION? This is by far the worst bad faith editing I have ever seen on the NK articles, and I've been watching these for SEVEN YEARS. I would summarily block you all if I weren't so damn lazy.

Usually protection is on the "wrong version", that is to say, whatever version it was when we saw it needed to be protected. But in this case, there is one version that has been worked on for six months, and there is the version that was an edit from six months ago that three different accounts (I dare not say "people" at this point, as puppetry is afoot) in FOUR HOURS used the worst reasoning I've ever seen to put back this edit. The right version is decidedly Brandmeister's, and it will remain there until you children either show you can work together, and a sockpuppet investigation is carried out, which I will start now. --Golbez (talk) 04:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And let me be clear: Maybe the better version is the one from October 9, 2011. But that doesn't mean you come in here and put it in with no edit summary, and then edit war to keep it because it needs to have a chance, and then have the gall to say "take it to the talk page". --Golbez (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Golbex, I just undid the edits of the banned user Tuscumbia. Technically, it has nothing to do with my earlier restoration and re-"owning" of the erased texts. The fact that the erased text appeared as default is just a technical detail. The better version is the one from October 9, 2011 but for the purpose of my actions this was immaterial. Hope u understand what I am saying. Zimmarod (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the article to force discussion. None took place, and when protection expired, you immediately resumed the edit war. Frankly, I should have issued a block right then. I am not making a statement on the question of it a topic ban warrants a blanket reversion, as it does not matter, two wrongs don't cancel out. --Golbez (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]